AI Summary & Key Takeaways
AI InsightWe suggest echocardiographic evaluation should include location of the paravalvular leakage during follow-up of patients with PVL after mitral valve replacement.
📌 3 Key Takeaways
Abstract
Objective: A relation between the location of the paravalvular leakage (PVL) and time to reoperation after mitral mechanical valve replacement was investigated. Methods: In an observational retrospective study plan, from 59 patients who underwent reoperation only 47 patients having clinical and echo- cardiographic follow-up for five years were included into study. Depending on echocardiographic evaluation of location of leak, patients were divided into Group 1 (Leaflet) and Group 2 (Commissural). Demographics, preoperative variables, causes of reoperation, the time period between diagnosis of PVL and reoperation were recorded. Unpaired t test or Mann-Whitney U test were used for comparison of variables between groups. Results: A PVL was diagnosed after a median time of 180 days (range: 1 day-28 years) after the first mitral valve replacement. The median follow- up period was 5 years (range; 1-16 years). Age, gender, left ventricular ejection function, number and size of leaks did not differ between groups (p>0.05). The time period between diagnosis and reoperation time was longer in Group 1 in comparison to Group 2 (39.0±9.9 vs. 19.5±12.8 months, p=0.002). The 30-day mortality for valve reoperation was 4.3% (2/47). In Group 1, 2 patients (2/21, 9.8%) died whereas, no death was observed in Group 2 (0/26, 0%) (p=0.002). Conclusion: The time period between diagnosis and reoperation was longer in leaflet leak group in comparison to commissural leak group. We suggest echocardiographic evaluation should include location of the paravalvular leakage during follow-up of patients with PVL after mitral valve replacement.